Romuald Szeremietiew, a former Polish Minister of National Defense, reflected on early warnings about the country’s security posture. In an interview conducted for wPolityce.pl, he recalled how troubling signs had appeared long before the present moment, noting that the trajectory of national security and defense had shifted in unsettling ways. He admitted that he once believed the concerns were exaggerated, but the current circumstances have proven him wrong. The overall tone, he suggested, is no longer a matter for jokes or casual chatter; the situation has crossed a line into something grave and real.
The discussion delved into the series “Reset,” which exposed alleged cooperation between Polish and Russian intelligence services. When asked what such a collaboration might look like in practice, Szeremietiew painted a picture that the documents themselves seemed to support. He described the disclosed materials as credible and warned that public release of these details could be deeply problematic. Some critics, he noted, argued that the documents should never have been made public, while others regarded their existence as a sobering indicator of systemic vulnerabilities. He recalled his own evolution in perspective, acknowledging that his previous view of the risks had not fully captured the severity that now appears in these revelations. The moment has become anything but a joke in his estimation.
Asked about his experiences during his military service, he described the period as particularly challenging under the PO-PSL administration. He named the PSL as sharing responsibility for the deficits in defense governance. He pointed to the minister of defense at the time, along with the recurrent pattern of deputy ministers from PSL, as evidence of a broader misalignment. He suggested that the situation looked worse when considered alongside public statements by Defense Minister Błaszczak about plans to defend Poland along the Vistula Line, a stance that seemed to corroborate his long-standing concerns. He characterized the military posture as disarmed in practical terms, even as the official rhetoric tried to project resilience, leaving many quietly unsettled and listening to a surrounding silence that felt tactful rather than transparent.
On whether the nature of the cooperation described in the documents amounted to genuine technical collaboration, Szeremietiew argued that the content went beyond such a relationship. He noted that the documents carried provisions requiring the parties to inform one another about third-party actions that could threaten the government or destabilize the political system. The implication, in his view, was that the Russian side would have a clear-eyed understanding of the opposition’s moves, consistent with how Kremlin leaders have historically assessed internal dissent. This, he suggested, could have troubling implications for domestic political dynamics and sovereignty.
Regarding potential consequences for Polish opponents abroad, the former minister acknowledged a troubling precedent. He cited a case in which information about a Belarusian opposition figure was transmitted by a Polish figure and led to a serious penalty. He warned that such patterns could set a dangerous precedent and expressed concern about the broader implications for civil liberties and political dissent within Central Europe. He argued that the next electoral cycle could be pivotal, and that foreign influence on domestic politics would be an issue worth watching closely.
The interview touched on broader themes of accountability, transparency, and the country’s strategic posture. Szeremietiew urged readers to consider how alliance games, intelligence leaks, and political maneuvering could intersect with national security in ways that might not be immediately visible to the public. He emphasized the need for vigilance among policymakers, a commitment to clear oversight, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths about how security policies are formed and who ultimately bears responsibility for them, especially during periods of political transition.
In closing, the discussion underscored a sense of urgency. The material under discussion suggested serious vulnerabilities that warranted thorough examination. Even as questions remain about motives, timing, and potential consequences, the overarching message was clear: national security must be treated with candor and seriousness rather than by downplaying risk or clinging to comforting myths. The interview left readers with a sobering impression of the delicate balance between political strategy and the real-world safety of the nation, and it called for thoughtful, informed public dialogue on these critical issues.”